Ian, my point is just this: Western liberal philosophy does not tolerate Slavery. It does not tolerate paedophila. The practice of either - by anyone, regardless of their religion, previous oppression, culture or whatever other 'reason' offered. Neither despicable practice is extinct. But the social pressure of the distain and disgust of initially a very few countries, brought others in. Now there is no country that officially offers sanction to the holders of slaves, and paedophiles who operated quite openly in some places, are no longer as able to do so. Even if it doesn't affect the type of people personally who do this sort of stuff, it makes it harder and less pleasant for them, and easier for those in authority to act on them. The social mirror is often not a good thing. But it can be used to great effect.
I appreciate that the people delivering aid in places like this are extremely dedicated. I respect them for this. I also know that not even the petty warlord in remote Somalia is an island. There are Somalis scattered to 4 corners of the globe. They keep a surprising amount of contact, and I believe have a great deal of influence as mirrors of what world society thinks of Somalia. If the world comes around to regarding their behavior the way we regard a slaver (and their treatement of women is nothing else) and not making excuses for them, there will be prestige to gained by NOT behaving in this fashion. And then, much as you describe, others will be obliged to follow suit.
Oh ... I agree with your statements (all of them) without reservation. My apologies if I ever gave that impression that I didn't. My fault. I tend to get involved in analysing stuff, forgetting the facts that I don't mention the precepts I'm operating on. In other words, I assumed everybody realised that I was "creaching to the perverted" and that the demands were self-evidentially absolutely ridiculous and carried on from there. My statement was actually that Somalia has descended into warlordism and that the essential dynamic driving them are internal rather than external. Provided, of course, that they don't provoke sufficient external rage at them to trigger direct outside intervention, at which point the dynamic will change again (watch as the cockroaches scurry away from the light). The aid agencies will remove women workers from the area and curb intervention, purely in order to reduce provocation so that they can continue their efforts to feed the unfortunates (who are actually the resource that have to be preserved if the country is ever to renew itself [unlikely as it seems at the moment]). This will be seen as a victory on the part of those that made the demands, despite the fact that it is nothing of the sort. And that will increase the prestige of the battalion commanders supporting this action. A soldier in this political structure can generally get enough to eat, assuming that the food is actually available. The fact that the vast majority of available food is now foreign aid and there is little incentive to farm,* contribute to reducing the status of the farmers even more. Thus farmers are not valuable to the warlords, except as a source of raw recruits for soldiers. Of course the simple way to change this dilemma is unpalatable to the Liberal West, despite the opening they have been given by these demands. But the warlords don't really care. The impression I get is that enough damage has been caused to Somalian society that standard cultural frameworks have almost totally disintegrated. The warlords are really in it for themselves. And if it goes sour, you can bet that they have escape plans already made. The trappings of holy war against the infidel are just that, trappings.** Meanwhile the non-soldiers do what they have always done in times like this. Try to survive. Even if it means dining with the devil in order to do so. And I can't see anything really changing. [The fact that the change has to be generated internally for it to be truly successful makes it difficult to visualize it happening any time soon. The warlords definitely don't have any incentive to do so the conflict is what gives them their power. But that doesn't stop outside forces condemning the actions and ethos involved, which is, IMNSHO, abominable.] [Disclaimer. It's a while since I've chatted with my Somalian neighbours and it's been quite a while since they were there, given the length of queues in the refugee system. I could be quite wrong.] * Even if you are successful, given the degradation of conditions, your success will attract the vultures/soldiers to loot your success. To escape this you must have enough foresight to see farmers as something that must be protected by the soldiery. ** That being said, there will be some who actively believe in the zealotry. There always are. And like most fanatics, they are quite insane.
I appreciate that the people delivering aid in places like this are extremely dedicated. I respect them for this. I also know that not even the petty warlord in remote Somalia is an island. There are Somalis scattered to 4 corners of the globe. They keep a surprising amount of contact, and I believe have a great deal of influence as mirrors of what world society thinks of Somalia. If the world comes around to regarding their behavior the way we regard a slaver (and their treatement of women is nothing else) and not making excuses for them, there will be prestige to gained by NOT behaving in this fashion. And then, much as you describe, others will be obliged to follow suit.
Reply
Oh ... I agree with your statements (all of them) without reservation. My apologies if I ever gave that impression that I didn't. My fault. I tend to get involved in analysing stuff, forgetting the facts that I don't mention the precepts I'm operating on. In other words, I assumed everybody realised that I was "creaching to the perverted" and that the demands were self-evidentially absolutely ridiculous and carried on from there.
My statement was actually that Somalia has descended into warlordism and that the essential dynamic driving them are internal rather than external. Provided, of course, that they don't provoke sufficient external rage at them to trigger direct outside intervention, at which point the dynamic will change again (watch as the cockroaches scurry away from the light).
The aid agencies will remove women workers from the area and curb intervention, purely in order to reduce provocation so that they can continue their efforts to feed the unfortunates (who are actually the resource that have to be preserved if the country is ever to renew itself [unlikely as it seems at the moment]). This will be seen as a victory on the part of those that made the demands, despite the fact that it is nothing of the sort. And that will increase the prestige of the battalion commanders supporting this action.
A soldier in this political structure can generally get enough to eat, assuming that the food is actually available. The fact that the vast majority of available food is now foreign aid and there is little incentive to farm,* contribute to reducing the status of the farmers even more. Thus farmers are not valuable to the warlords, except as a source of raw recruits for soldiers. Of course the simple way to change this dilemma is unpalatable to the Liberal West, despite the opening they have been given by these demands.
But the warlords don't really care. The impression I get is that enough damage has been caused to Somalian society that standard cultural frameworks have almost totally disintegrated. The warlords are really in it for themselves. And if it goes sour, you can bet that they have escape plans already made. The trappings of holy war against the infidel are just that, trappings.**
Meanwhile the non-soldiers do what they have always done in times like this. Try to survive. Even if it means dining with the devil in order to do so.
And I can't see anything really changing. [The fact that the change has to be generated internally for it to be truly successful makes it difficult to visualize it happening any time soon. The warlords definitely don't have any incentive to do so the conflict is what gives them their power. But that doesn't stop outside forces condemning the actions and ethos involved, which is, IMNSHO, abominable.]
[Disclaimer. It's a while since I've chatted with my Somalian neighbours and it's been quite a while since they were there, given the length of queues in the refugee system. I could be quite wrong.]
* Even if you are successful, given the degradation of conditions, your success will attract the vultures/soldiers to loot your success. To escape this you must have enough foresight to see farmers as something that must be protected by the soldiery.
** That being said, there will be some who actively believe in the zealotry. There always are. And like most fanatics, they are quite insane.
Reply
Leave a comment